Jim Bromer wrote:
Mark said: I have to side with Richard on this. The truth is *not* obvious. Mark --------------- I agree with Mark here, but I wish Richard could be a little more succinct about what he is saying. I mean the details are interesting but I think what he is saying could be a little better focused. I want to know why he thinks complexity cannot be tolerated and bounded by a programmed AGI system (of limited complexity)? Jim Bromer
Yikes, I usually get criticized for being *too* succinct. I am trying to summarize arguments that require a good deal of attention and thought, so my attempts to explain them are usually too short (painful as that may sound).
To answer your question, the complexity is so deeply embedded in the thing that the AGI is supposed to be doing, that it is not at all clear if there will ever be a way to build an AGI without it being complex. Remember: that is the point of the argument - that it is not clear that it can be avoided, and that therefore we must proceed on the assumption that it cannot.
You have not been thinking that "complexity" just means "complicated" have you? It is easy to do, but it leads to complete and utter misunderstanding of the whole argument, so beware.
Richard Loosemore ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
